Reparation and enforcement of judgments : a comparative analysis of the European and Inter-American human rights systems

The inter-American human rights system has been conceived following the example of the European system under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) before it was modified by Protocol No 11. However, two important differences exist. First, the authority of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to order reparation has been strictly limited by the principle of subsidiarity. Thus, the ECtHR's main function is to determine whether the ECHR has been violated. Beyond the declaratory effect of its judgments, according to Article 41 ECHR, it may only "afford just satisfaction to the injured party". The powers of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) were conceived in a much broader fashion in Article 63 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), giving the Court the authority to order a variety of individual and general measures aimed at obtaining restitutio in integrum. The first main part of this thesis shows how both Courts have developed their reparation practice and examines the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Secondly, the ECtHR's rather limited reparation powers have, interestingly, been combined with an elaborate implementation system that includes several of the Council of Europe's organs, principally the Committee of Ministers. In the Inter-American System, no dedicated mechanism was implemented to oversee compliance with the IACtHR's judgments. The ACHR limits itself to inviting the Court to point out in its annual reports the cases that have not been complied with and to propose measures to be adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. The General Assembly, however, hardly ever took action. The IACtHR has therefore filled this gap by developing a proper procedure to oversee compliance with its judgments. Both the European and the American solutions to ensure compliance are presented and compared in the second main part of this thesis. Finally, based on the results of both main parts, a comparative analysis of the reparation practice and the execution results in both human rights systems is being provided, aimed at developing proposals for the improvement of the functioning of either human rights protection system.